What are the pillars of our society?Those who make decisions on our behalf, those who enforce those decisions and those who report them to us:GovernmentChurchesThe militaryThe mediaThey are all institutions whose existences are based on beliefs they do not accept any dissension from.Government – we are legitimate and all of our actions are legitimateChurches – our dogma is correct and you will be punished in the next life if you disobeyThe military – our wars are justified and you are not patriotic if you say otherwiseThe media – what we say is true, we hide nothing important and if you disagree, you are a nut.The institutions control public discussion by labeling thoughts that would harm their existence. The following questions will never be answered by any of these pillars:Government – What is national security and what types of information are really hidden to the public for this reason?Churches – Can you prove that the leader of your religion really existed?The military – How many soldiers would you recruit if you told them the truth about why we were sending them to war?The media – How often are you pressured into dropping stories and who pressures you?To get these questions answered, we need another actor to join the debate. Many fear the institutions and their enormous power and do not ask why our society functions as it does. But we need the questions answered.Almost every debate, whether about something like guns (especially in light of recent reported shootings in the national news) or butter (like the perpetual debate of how much money to devote to the military) starts off with at least one of the false beliefs stated above. In short, the debate gets it wrong IN THE FIRST PLACE.Be a part of a public that reasonably questions what we hear. Disregard those who state beliefs but do not back them up or who refuse to answer your questions. This is how we collectively will get these questions answered. Then we can discuss the details.

Problems abound in our society. Just listen to people complain about taxes, crime, racism, sexism and numerous other forms of injustice, real or imagined. We may never be able to solve all of them, certainly not to the satisfaction of every person.What if we could get to the root of what causes so much ill in society?I will make a number of hypotheses on what that root or roots could be. I will tell what society would be like without the root as a way of evaluating what its presence means to us.This essay is about the proposal of a community in a fictitious big city in the United States. Society has its share of complications. For most people, the desires to get a good job and live in a comfortable neighborhood are not achieved easily. And even then, the average person faces conflict, perhaps a difference of opinion or worse, with those in power.So I will start with Hypothesis #1: Lawsuits are a root of problems in our society.A person may empower themselves by filing a lawsuit or a claim against the alleged offender of their rights and demand remedy for this offense. But instead of acclaiming this right, I will create a community which challenges the premise that this empowerment really helps society as a whole.What if we focused on the roots of conflict and looked for better ways to make effective resolution?If a person believes they have been treated unfairly, they may well feel justified that they have a legal basis to make a complaint. An individual’s relationship to the law revolves around rights and responsibilities.For example, if one signs a contract to sell a used car to another person for $10,000 and the other person, at the appointed time of transaction, tenders only $6,000, one could easily establish the right to the remaining $4,000. And, likewise, the responsibility of the other person to pay that amount of money.The two may not agree. Perhaps the other person has an excuse not to pay, a different understanding of the contract, or perhaps out of spite, simply won’t pay. The two may not even be able to resolve this conflict. So the first person, with or without an attorney, files a lawsuit in the appropriate court.Then it takes months or even years for the court to hear the suit.A law firm in Michigan describes the process for lawsuits involving money as time spent in preparation of the filing of the lawsuit, the actual filing, the response from the defendant, discovery (6 months to a year), and case evaluation/settlement recommendation before actual trial. Perhaps our hypothetical case would be settled or brought to trial sooner, but the point remains: the process is complicated and brings the parties far away from the conflict that brought about the suit. The ability to simplify conflict may not be possible, but what if we made the process simpler and closer to home?I propose our community be composed of residents who will voluntarily surrender their right to sue. They may sue in a court outside the community but would have to leave the community.We can give the parties to the contract dispute names. Alex and Bob. With no one telling Alex to sue Bob, Alex calls Bob on the phone and asks for $4,000 to complete the deal they signed.Bob, with no lawyer to tell him to keep his mouth shut, tells Alex he simply doesn’t have the money. Alex responds by asking when he will have the money. Bob cannot give an exact time frame, but makes it clear that he fears the imminent reduction in hours at his job and must save his money.The conversation takes a detour about the economy before a sympathetic Alex proposes a payment plan. Bob readily agrees as Alex assures him, “I know you are good for it. I know where you live.”The two hang up. Maybe Bob follows the plan and pays in full someday. Maybe he doesn’t and Alex revises the plan and accepts Bob’s golf clubs at some point.But what if the conflict is a little more complicated?Carla lives in the community but works for a big company elsewhere. The company demotes her for insubordination over an incident at work. She thinks she is innocent but gets nowhere in approaching her Human Resources Department. The pay cut significantly reduces her income and she wants to fight it using the legal system.But suing would mean losing her nice house in the community and Carla fears she will be unable to find a good place to live on the outside.But what if the company values Carla enough not to want to lose her? Or what if they are concerned that other employees, who upon learning about Carla’s situation, start to think about employment elsewhere? Perhaps they would change their policies voluntarily.These are only two examples of a community without lawsuits. I propose to explore other possible situations that would come up.

"This is an extremely important new book because in addition to uncovering the bogus and transparently false cover stories of our recent past, Rumors Fly, Truth Walks actually tells us how the “official government versions” get manufactured and pushed down the public’s throat. It not only tells us that there’s a huge elephant in the room; it explains how it got there and why our so-called leaders turn their heads to its existence."

--David Wayne, New York Times bestselling author of Dead Wrong and Hit List (with Richard Belzer) and They Killed Our President (with Jesse Ventura)

When truth does not come from authority, we must seek authority from truth.

We may not completely understand what our government does or why they do it at all times, but we should know one truth about it. A government fears only the revolution.

This fact should not surprise anyone. Those who run the government and those who benefit from it would lose everything they have staked in it. These are the same people empowered to put down a revolution.

Two thousand years ago, the Roman Empire feared a revolt from the Jews who believed the empire had taken over land that belonged to them and forced them to pay tribute to the Caesar. The Jews did revolt on several occasions and though the Romans put each of them down, the costs of human lives and resources mounted.

So what did the Romans do?

According to Joseph Atwill, author of Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, they set aside the use of force and used a different tactic to solve this problem. Specifically, they invented a brand-new religion that convinced Jews to adopt a pacifistic attitude towards the Roman authority. Instead of promoting war and dissent, the new religion told its adherents to “turn the other cheek.” and to “render unto Caesar what is his.” The new religion became the official religion of the Roman Empire and spread throughout the world. Billions of people practice it now. Of course, this religion is Christianity. Followers believe the New Testament’s account of a man who claims to be a deity and who proves this claim by first dying of a crucifixion and then coming back to life. Atwill points out that all evidence of this story comes from a single source, Josephus, who wrote forty years after the events described allegedly took place.

The point of the fiction is its message of peace and uncritical acceptance of authority. It still works today in the United States. Republicans and Democrats for the most part respect authority even when the other party holds it. Fringe groups like the Tea Party only encourage respect for authority which agrees to Tea Party principles. All of these political groups are prepared to ignore the truth about authority (i.e. the legitimacy of a government) because they are too concerned about being obedient. When the public hears names like “Lee Harvey Oswald” or “Bin Laden” broadcast (by an obedient media) as criminals, most obey the order to believe what they hear. This docility works to help our government promote official stories which are used as justification to start wars in our name.These lies should not cause us to become pacifists. These lies should cause us to look for truth from different sources than government or religious sources. Are you willing to take that leap of logic?

The events of 9/11 were a hoax. I spent several years researching the event and have presented my conclusions on this topic. People are free to read what I have to say and agree or disagree with those conclusions. My question now is: what should we who are convinced of the falsity of the official theory of 9/11 want? We will never convict those responsible for this fraud. We will never get the mainstream media to show our side to the story. We will never reverse the policies that came about as a result of the fraud. With that in mind, we can and should focus on something that we can attain. It is something far more basic than any of these other goals and perhaps even more useful. It is the simple concept of freedom. The controversy over what happened on September 11 and many other events before and since has stoked the fears of all of us. Fear of terrorists. Fear of foreigners. Fear of flying. Fear of freedoms being taken from us. Fear of the future. In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, we need freedom from fear. We can work toward this goal by untangling us from what makes us so afraid: the unknown. Answers to a few simple questions would be helpful. Are you afraid the government will take your guns (or other freedoms)? Do you often believe what the same government tells you about 9/11 and other events? Do you believe history repeats itself? Do you believe the future will be much different than the past? If you are willing to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time, will you ever achieve freedom of thought? Welcome to a future that will be a lot like what we have already experienced. The government and media will continue to lie to protect interests. People will continue to predict Doomsday. The truth about anything important will be known but never stated openly until it no longer matters. Clear your mind and follow the way of the world. Not a straight line to disaster but one big familiar circle instead.

Here is some good news. Some fears that have been voiced publicly will NOT come true!The government will not take your guns away. With three hundred million guns in the United States, what is the government going to do – send in the tanks to force gun owners to give them up? And even if you have all of your weapons, would you have a chance against the full force of our government, anyhow? Relax. Besides, have you noticed gun sales going up recently after the shooting tragedies in Sandy Hook and elsewhere?The world is not going to end. Remember Fleetwood Mac’s song. “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.” It is where we will spend the rest of our lives. Whenever people stop thinking about the future and how our consequences affect it, they tend to act without restraint. Some people have been duped by talk of a Second Coming or the end of the world and they sell their possessions and plan for the hereafter, only to be disappointed. On a larger scale, leaders who believe the end is near often show disregard for protecting our environment and may even see the wars we wage as part of the run-up to the end. Keep acting today and keep living for tomorrow and we will keep the world turning!Dissenters will not wind up in concentration camps Our leaders are lying or repeating lies about a number of matters, but don’t worry, they can handle the few who stand up to challenge them without resorting to extremes. Talk about FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) camps being built for dissenters ignores the fact that dissenters have not convinced the public to change its collective attitude about much of anything. The jailing of the political dissenters is the last stand of a dictatorship. As the United States prides itself as the bastion of democracy, the government has no interest in this strategy.

We may not win the battle of identifying all of the criminals of 9/11 but that should not surprise us.

What I have said about the events of 9/11 is not a secret. Those with open minds and a desire to discern facts discover the truth of what I and many others say on a daily basis.

The criminals of 9/11, the Kennedy brother murders and other events are merely a faction that uses the power of the government without authority. And they use that power to stay outside of anyone's reach.

Official theories have been given to us by the faction, their enablers in politics and the media. Most of the public readily accept them because the same people who propose the official theory have control over opposition to it.

These theories never go before a court of law and become subject to cross-examination. The chosen forum for the theories, the mainstream media of television, radio, etc. simply deliver the news given (i.e. what is official) and not critique of this news.

As a result, the burden of proof to the average member of the public runs low, to the point of plausibility. Those of us who demand a higher burden of proof will keep banging our heads against this wall as long as the official theories reach us in the manner they do.

We may not win the battle of identifying all of the criminals of 9/11 but that should not surprise us. We have engaged in a game without rules, teams or a finish line.

All is not lost. Thanks to those who have raised and even answered questions about controversial events have inspired awareness that the public does not always receive the truth. We are now more than ever likely to seek information about a wide range of topics, such as medicine, food, and history.

We should all continue to seek the information we need to help ourselves and to help the society in which we live. The real game of creating a society that outs the criminal faction will be won by those who take the time to educate themselves about anything they think matters.

I have trouble communicating with people who do not appear to care about facts. One well-meaning acquaintance approached me, a public employee, and told me that the Los Angeles Times had run an article about how CALPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System) had based its projections about public pensions on the assumption that the Dow Jones would reach 25,000. Given that the Dow Jones has never been especially close to this number, this sounded like CALPERS had made a tremendous mistake. He implied that the taxpayers are being asked to pay too much toward public employee pensions and perhaps even saying that people like me should agree to reductions. I researched and found what I believe is the article to which he referred. Here is the relevant excerpt, from the Orange County Register, a newspaper not known to be friendly to public employees:"CalPERS, which in 1999 advocated retroactive pension increases based on assumed rates of investment returns that essentially required the Dow Jones industrial average to reach 25,000 by 2009, is backed by taxpayers whether its projections are right or wrong." I looked to see where CALPERS had actually made a statement or had implied that the Dow Jones would need to reach 25,000 by 2009. So I went straight to the law that enacted the pension increases in 1999, SB 400. Here is a portion of the bill where proponents say why they support it:If this benefit package is enacted, the state contribution will fall initially in 2000-2001, to 1.07% of payroll, or $103 million, due to the initial impact of the accounting change, but will increase significantly thereafter, to 4.65% of payroll in 2001-2002, or $465.6 million. The employer rate will level off in subsequent years, eventually falling below 3% in 2008-2009, but the employer contribution amount will remain in the $379 million range. CalPERS, however, believes they will be able to mitigate this cost increase through continued excess returns of the CalPERS fund. They anticipate that the state's contribution to CalPERS will remain below the 1998-99 fiscal year for at least the next decade. Overall, the benefit equity package is the equivalent to about a 2% to 2% increase in normal costs.If no changes in benefits are enacted, and current assumptions hold, the employer rate will continue to decline, to below 2% of payroll by the 2002-03 fiscal year. State contributions will decline from the $1.2 billion paid in 1997-98 to $112 million in 2005-06, a decline of about 90% in less than a decade. With the enactment of this bill, the state will not realize all of these currently projected savings. The CalPERS Board of Administration, however, has agreed to increase from 90 to 95% the assets considered in its valuation of the plans, and shorten the amortization of the excess assets to 20 years, to help mitigate the impact of the benefit enhancements on State employer contributions.” I have put in bold what I think are the most important excerpts. The comments mention state contributions (i.e. taxes to go towards funding of the pensions) to decline at least until about 2009 because of “excess returns of the CALPERS fund.” I am still unclear about where the number 25,000 in connection to the Dow Jones came from. At the time of the bill’s writing, CALPERS had gotten exceptional returns. The Dow Jones had cited CALPERS for a 20.1% return in 1999-2000. At around that time, the USA Today had said that “strapped” governments had “looked to pension funds.” The point that critics make is not without merit. When CALPERS investments go poorly in a given year, the state uses taxes to fulfill its obligations to the pension funds. To guarantee pensions in this manner may not be the best idea, they say. I can, as a taxpayer and as a public employee (who chooses not to belong to any union), identify with some of the calls for reform. Recent hires at my and other cities are promised a lesser pension if and when they work a certain amount of years (typically 30) and reach a certain age (55 or 60). The base of pension that one receives could be adjusted to their mean salary rather than their highest salary. Annual pensions could be capped at $100,000. These reforms would not likely upset the obligation of the state to fund the pensions. We need a good dialogue between those who are concerned about taxes and those who serve the public. It all begins with identifying the problem, the most relevant facts and the most just solutions.

The government did not conspire on 9/11. In fact, the government can’t even tie its own shoes. Individuals act on behalf of the government to collect taxes and to pay for services for its residents. Individuals acted on 9/11. Some of them reported what they or others did to the media. The media is not one person or one entity. But people who work for the media with the greatest range to broadcast messages frequently choose to say the same things and to not say other things. No one saw the alleged hijackers of 9/11. No one witnessed the alleged hijackings of 9/11. How did we learn of hijackings on 9/11? Individuals falsely reported to individuals in the media that they received calls from people claiming to be hijacked. Many in the media and who act on behalf of the government continue to tell us about hijackings on 9/11. Most people hear the lie about hijackers – on television, the radio and the movies - and do not react to the lie. They may not see what good it would do to challenge it. Or they are waiting for someone else to speak up. The author uses this book to speak up and call a lie a lie. Your government won’t care, because it can’t. The question is whether you care about where your leaders have taken you and where you may go next. Freedom does not end with a bang, but a whimper. Read Planes without Passengers, 2nd Edition and get to know one piece of truth not just about 9/11 but about us. Click here

What does it mean to support the troops? I frequently see the statement “Support Our Troops” on bumper stickers and I hear it from people as well. Like a lot of short, simple statements, its vagueness encourages its likability. Our troops have bombed and invaded nations that presented no threat to us. They participate in drone bombings and have killed innocent people. In all fairness, those who say they support the troops do not likely support these actions. Many who join the armed forces do so because they cannot get a job nor can they afford college. They are the ones who most need our support and we can give it to them. What if more young people could choose to go to college? Consider a new report from Bloomberg.com reported in The Week magazine that the “net worth of the average Canadian household was $363,202, while the average American household had a net worth of $319,970.” The net worth statistics used to be the other way around. How have the Canadians surpassed us in this regard? We could look to what our federal government spends. For Fiscal Year 2010, spending on the United States Defense Department took up at least twenty percent of the budget. The number goes higher when one considers spending on Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, interest on debt incurred in previous wars and other issues. What do nations like Canada spend on their military? About 1.4 percent! On the other hand, the United States’ federal government outspends the Canadian government in percentage of spending on education of the total budget. It also outspends the Canadians on issues such as health care. What assists the Canadians in terms of education is that it does not cost to go to “college” there. Colleges are two-year schools that United States refers to as “community college.” The costs of going to community college are high and getting higher. So are the costs of going to college, as many in the military are well aware. We can foresee a problem ahead of time. The costs of going to college will rise to the point where most young adults will not be able to afford it. Jobs will continue to require degrees of most applicants. The military will remain one employer that does not require formal schooling. We need to shift some of the military spending to colleges to lower the tuition bills. Here is how: We must stop starting “elective” wars where we choose to fight a non-existent threat. This will lower the payment of interest on war spending. We must reduce the stationing of soldiers in areas of conflict. This will lower spending on veterans affairs. We must encourage diplomacy and find ways to avoid conflict that we clearly cannot afford. The result will be a generation of citizens who do not feel pressured to join the military. And those who do join will do so more willingly and with the realization that the avoidance of conflict is a goal worth pursuing. Overall, our presence overseas will no longer exceed what we can afford. And the presence at home will be a future of better educated people who might have better ideas as to how to stop unnecessary wars.